A Video I'd Love to See

[Andros]

in a thread not too long ago - there was a debate about youth and being able to recruit (or pinch) youth.  the eds and some others here (imo) were facing an uphill battle trying to get people to prove that there was a problem and wanted to get people to provide a save game and details so that SI could look at it and make a decision.  People (again IMO) were using anecdotical evidence to make there points about how real madrid were able to get young players but they couldn't on their saves (perhaps illegally but hey hoy uefa..). i dont think many (or any) people uploaded a save. I feel the same is happening here: but this time it is the defenders of the game that are not providing evidence.  So i will try (for the last time) to ask for specific example of the points people are making that the survey is flawed. I am in no way a staunch supporter of doctor benjy or the survey - but i have seen multiple examples of people saying there are problems with the survey without specific examples of these problems and how it can be improved.  maybe you are correct - but the arguments are vague and (again IMO) not really addressing the points. Or in other words - can you provide a save game of the issue that can help us solve the problem  . Lets attack the argument and not the motivation behind it.

[themadsheep2001]

14500 would be a lot if they were random and right across-the-board board of the playing base, as that actually gives you varied enough data collection pool. Can't overstated how important that variation is to make it representative. Without that, it's a tiny minority of base who consume FM in a similar (which is why they'd follow you and interact). Otherwise 14500 doesn't even touch the walls of the majority, vocal or otherwise 

Anyway that's me done on this as I'll just be repeating myself 

[doctorbenjy]

2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

14500 would be a lot if they were random and right across-the-board board of the playing base, as that actually gives you varied enough data collection pool. Can't overstated how important that variation is to make it representative. Without that, it's a tiny minority of base who consume FM in a similar (which is why they'd follow you and interact). Otherwise 14500 doesn't even touch the walls of the majority, vocal or otherwise 

Anyway that's me done on this as I'll just be repeating myself 

It's a lot regardless, but I accept your distinction. I hope you can accept not everyone follows and interacts with me, but maybe I should have added that as a question! 

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Wow mods jealous of content creators much? Jesus. 

7 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

See this kind of disingenuous post is exactly why you see SI post less and less. What's the point in communicating with users who misrepresent you right after you've put out a clear clarification?

Are you actually white knighting for SI? I literally follow dozens of game each year the vast majority are Indy titles. And Ive seen devs literally respond to every thread about all of their current games not just on their forums but on steam as well. Example Trese Brothers developers. Negative feedback is part of the Video Game industry. You need tough skin. Dont make excuses for SI that is lame. FM has morphed beyond its initial audience since covid. It is the overall video game world now, beyond just the football or sport fans. You have users playing and consuming FM because it is a good game regardless of how they feel about football IRL.

SI needs to step up and get over its history with its user base. They need improved communication channels. There is no need to wait a month before release to talk about features. I dont know any video game that operates that way. It looks like SI are scared to share information too early with its user base because of negativity. You cannot operate that way.

Honestly SI has some of the worst communication with its userbase in the video game industry that i have ever seen from and indy developer. They act like they are EA or Activision.

 

 

[forameuss]

6 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

Wow mods jealous of content creators much? Jesus. 

Are you actually white knighting for SI? I literally follow dozens of game each year the vast majority are Indy titles. And Ive seen devs literally respond to every thread about all of their current games not just on their forums but on steam as well. Example Trese Brothers developers. Negative feedback is part of the Video Game industry. You need tough skin. Dont make excuses for SI that is lame. FM has morphed beyond its initial audience since covid. It is the overall video game world now, beyond just the football or sport fans. You have users playing and consuming FM because it is a good game regardless of how they feel about football IRL.

SI needs to step up and get over its history with its user base. They need improved communication channels. There is no need to wait a month before release to talk about features. I dont know any video game that operates that way. It looks like SI are scared to share information too early with its user base because of negativity. You cannot operate that way.

Honestly SI has some of the worst communication with its userbase in the video game industry that i have ever seen from and indy developer. They act like they are EA or Activision.

Yeah, that's the game.  They should just toughen up, because it's totally normal to expect abuse over a video game, and not, you know, expect people to be able to converse like normal human beings over something that's supposed to be entertainment.  

It doesn't matter what other developers do.  SI choose to do it this way.  I don't entirely agree, but can see why they do it.  If only there was some way for you to express your displeasure and not keep supporting a company that sells a product if you dislike the direction it goes in...if only.

42 minutes ago, Andros said:

in a thread not too long ago - there was a debate about youth and being able to recruit (or pinch) youth.  the eds and some others here (imo) were facing an uphill battle trying to get people to prove that there was a problem and wanted to get people to provide a save game and details so that SI could look at it and make a decision.  People (again IMO) were using anecdotical evidence to make there points about how real madrid were able to get young players but they couldn't on their saves (perhaps illegally but hey hoy uefa..). i dont think many (or any) people uploaded a save. I feel the same is happening here: but this time it is the defenders of the game that are not providing evidence.  So i will try (for the last time) to ask for specific example of the points people are making that the survey is flawed. I am in no way a staunch supporter of doctor benjy or the survey - but i have seen multiple examples of people saying there are problems with the survey without specific examples of these problems and how it can be improved.  maybe you are correct - but the arguments are vague and (again IMO) not really addressing the points. Or in other words - can you provide a save game of the issue that can help us solve the problem  . Lets attack the argument and not the motivation behind it.

I gave pretty specific examples of why the survey was skewed, and explained why it'd probably be difficult to have a truly balanced one without needing a million questions.  Most of the questions are fairly standard, albeit vague at some points.  But as soon as it starts to touch on features, it reads exactly like a lot of the more negative comments addressed at the game.  There's a focus on the new features and how you've received them, and when it comes to "the future" section, again there's a weirdly heavy emphasis on both the graphics and the competition argument.  Both of those latter things are common points of discussion and the questions are written in the usual tone that people use when they're sitting at a more negative standpoint.  Ditto with the specific calling out of women's football.  That's probably entirely innocent, and I'm not levelling anything at the survey, but it's another hot button issue, and taken with all the other things in the survey, it suggests it's trying to further pick holes in SI's strategy, which isn't really something a supposedly impartial survey should be doing.  And generally, I think the specific modules listed as selectable to be improved are poorly chosen.  I couldn't really encapsulate the things I think are really wrong with the game through them, and I've got no option to provide anything else.  In fact, as a wider point, I have no option at any point in the survey to provide an extra opinion or explain choices.  The former also suggests that it's trying to push people towards agreeing with an opinion, rather than providing their own.

If you're wanting to make the survey more neutral, I would ditch any question that specifically focuses on one feature, and ignores others.  No questions specifically around competition or graphical improvements if you're not going to also ask similar things around AI, interfaces etc.  At the very least offer an "other" option with means to explain.  

But Ultimately, like I said in the previous post, I'm not sure there is a way to get a properly useful survey out of something like this.  Even if it was better balanced than this one.

[themadsheep2001]

A good example of the kind of nasty  interaction that shuts down communication, Jimmy. And frankly one that we don't tolerate here. 

Nevermind the fact that a good number of mods are or have been content creators. 

It's not about positive or negative, but constructive, which the thread has largely been.

What does need to be said is that if you throwing start around insults, we'll be showing you the door very, very quickly. 

[themadsheep2001]

51 minutes ago, doctorbenjy said:

It's a lot regardless, but I accept your distinction. I hope you can accept not everyone follows and interacts with me, but maybe I should have added that as a question! 

It's not specific to you for what its worth, good wide ranging representative surveys are extremely hard to do. 

[FM_Grasshopper]

5 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

Wow mods jealous of content creators much? Jesus.

Offering an alternative view on something doesn't necessarily mean they are jealous, that's just you jumping to conclusions and being lazy if I'm honest.

Edited January 6, 2023 by FM_Grasshopper

[Ghost4928]

13 hours ago, forameuss said:

First impressions, I can see why certain questions are asked, but they don't seem to be asking it in the right way.  Like asking your first FM - what is that telling you?  Seems to be trying to see how long-tenured a fan is, but there's no difference in that question between someone who bought FM05, then left the series for almost two decades, and someone who has bought every edition.  Maybe I'm missing what the question intended, but given there's no other questions around that...it's also asking the sort of basic stuff that SI probably have in far greater detail and, crucially, in far larger numbers.  What's the point if you're ultimately wanting this to go to SI and help?  What use is you telling them that 200 pissed off people on twitter manage at a lower level when they have metrics that tell them what every single one of their millions of users have done with their careers in great detail?

The "How you play football manager" section lacks detail (but again, SI will know all this in the detail they'd need).  I manage different levels of team.  How many seasons isn't something you can usually just put a single numerical answer on.  Hell, the whole section seems incredibly pointless to anyone that can actually do something with it.

...

Most sections of it are, even if they are just general questions that don't mean much on their own.  But then I'd also add that it's difficult to boil down something truly useful from giving ranges of 1 to 5 on very fixed topics.  I could probably write pages and pages on what was wrong with the game and what could get improved, and end up with it needing a long discussion to distill into something useful.  Me assigning a value of 4 to how important the match engine is to improve is so horrifically vague that it becomes almost pointless.

...

Most of the questions are fairly standard, albeit vague at some points.

 

So if we're gonna unpack these responses from you that you claim to be highlighting why the survey is negatively skewed, then you're kidding yourself. The only gripe we can summarise from these 3 points posted at 3 different times is that you're annoyed that the survey is vague, not that it's negatively skewed. Nothing you've said in these repsonses actually highlight why the survey is negtaively skewed, you've just said so without evidence backing you up (quite ironically vague on your part).

 

Quote

Outside of that, the next section is basically another big pinata shaped like the feature announcement that they're inviting people to beat to death.  

 

Again, quite an ironic statement considering the above point where you make a general statement without pinpointing why the questions are asking for people to "beat to death". If it is so, you would be able to explain why.

 

Quote

The Do you Install pack seems pointless too given that SI can't really be seen to have much to do with that.

 

I'm very interested as to why you left a one-liner on this topic, considering you've tried to psycho-analyse Ben's intent with the survey to the nth degree in other responses. You've tried to break apart questions in the survey and the relevancy of them, questioning whether it's for Ben to use to improve his content, or whether the datat collected is useful or not for SI, yet on this topic, you use a throw away line to show your dismay.

 

Quote

But as soon as it starts to touch on features, it reads exactly like a lot of the more negative comments addressed at the game.  There's a focus on the new features and how you've received them, and when it comes to "the future" section, again there's a weirdly heavy emphasis on both the graphics and the competition argument.  Both of those latter things are common points of discussion and the questions are written in the usual tone that people use when they're sitting at a more negative standpoint.

 

Interesting. Still comments that you claim the survey is negatively skewed, but still no evidence to support it. Just some more vague lines of "...common points of discussion and the questions are written in the usual tone that people use when they're sitting at a more negative standpoint". Oh really? What language within the questions suggests this? A "common point of discussion" can't be inherently negative, so it can't just be the topic of the question that causes a negative skew, so it must be from the way the question is worded, would it not?

Let's have a look at it then.

How is a question such as "How much are you enjoying FM23?" or "Are you enjoying FM23 more or less than you expected?" written in a negative tone? I mean, the clear assumption in both questions is that there is a level of enjoyment from the player. If there was a negative skew in the question, why wouldn't it be something like "How disappointed are you in FM23?". I mean, when you compare the questions in the survey, and the question I just asked, an obvious skew in questionning appears, and it's not the one you're suggesting.

Again, consider "How excited were you for FM23's new features?" vs "How disinterested were you for FM23's new features?"

Which one has a more negative view on the game?

You also seem to criticise the survey for "focus[ing] on the new features and how you've received them", and my question is, why wouldn't that be asked? Surely that's one of the most important aspects of the game that should be considered?

 

6 hours ago, forameuss said:

Ditto with the specific calling out of women's football.  That's probably entirely innocent, and I'm not levelling anything at the survey, but it's another hot button issue, and taken with all the other things in the survey, it suggests it's trying to further pick holes in SI's strategy, which isn't really something a supposedly impartial survey should be doing.

 

Again, interesting point. Impartial, how? Does it suggest that SI is wrong for adding women's football? If you're influenced by Ben being the creator of the survey, and then perceiving the question negatively, then you don't actually know Ben's view on the matter.

And why shouldn't it be asked if the topic when announced caused mass speculation as to how much time SI could then focus on other aspects of the game (which, whether rightly or wrongly, many have speculated as to why FM23 is so underwhelming as a release).

Being impartial isn't to be quiet on potentially controverisal topics, it's to present the controversial topics in a balanced and fair manner.

If a question along the lines of "Do you think the inclusion of women's football has impacted FM23", then I totally understand your point herre, but the only question raised was to merely gauge interest in it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Quote

And generally, I think the specific modules listed as selectable to be improved are poorly chosen.  I couldn't really encapsulate the things I think are really wrong with the game through them, and I've got no option to provide anything else.  In fact, as a wider point, I have no option at any point in the survey to provide an extra opinion or explain choices.  The former also suggests that it's trying to push people towards agreeing with an opinion, rather than providing their own.

 

How much more micro would you want the listing to be then? There's enough distinction between each listed object so that it's not at a macro level of listing, and where do you stop between distinction of features of the game if your aim is a micro level of analysis? Should corners be spearated from free kicks, and then furthermore, attacking corners on the left be separated with attacking corners from the right? Or is Set Pieces enough of an encapsulation for you to give an opinion?

 

Quote

No questions specifically around competition or graphical improvements if you're not going to also ask similar things around AI, interfaces etc.  At the very least offer an "other" option with means to explain.  

 

Also, interfaces also fall under the umbrella term of graphics.

Furthermore, those 2 issues have been the 2 most vocally talked about issues that I've seen discussed since the launch of FM23, even moreso than the AI. I mean, I see plenty of praise for the majority of the ME, which is mostly AI based, and other issues with it are more specific rather than a general problem than AI.

 

Quote

If you're wanting to make the survey more neutral, I would ditch any question that specifically focuses on one feature, and ignores others.

 

To a certain extent, sure, I agree that @doctorbenjy's decision to prevent comments or explaining of choices as odd (and I have heard the repsonse on his stream as to why he made that choice, which I still don't necessarily agree with), but there's an infinite amount of features one could request ranging from the macro to micro, and at what point do you stop listing them in a survey? Surely engagement on some of the more vocally heard features is better than nothing in this scenario?

Also, again, a feature isn't inherently biased in some sort of way, you'll need language to prove if it is.

[Ferocious289]

Great objective discussion breaking down the issues in FM though It's quite disturbing that Dijit feels he has to apologise in the opening of the video to SI for simply making a video outlining the flaws in the game

 

[Daveincid]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Ferocious289:

Great objective discussion breaking down the issues in FM though It's quite disturbing that Dijit feels he has to apologise in the opening of the video to SI for simply making a video outlining the flaws in the game

 

I won't lie that it feels strange to see my face in the thumbnail 
I hope you guys like the inputs which have been made by all of us

[themadsheep2001]

Its a really good video, but then I expect nothing less from anything that contains Daljit and Dave. Not to mention the fact that both have already passed on their thoughts and data to SI. Content done right

[gunnerfan]

2 hours ago, Ferocious289 said:

Great objective discussion breaking down the issues in FM though It's quite disturbing that Dijit feels he has to apologise in the opening of the video to SI for simply making a video outlining the flaws in the game

 

I didn't find the apology disturbing at all. He was acknowledging what can happen on the business side when coding work is criticized and hoping his critique doesn't negative unintended consequences. I thought he was being quite decent about it.

[CFuller]

2 hours ago, Daveincid said:

I won't lie that it feels strange to see my face in the thumbnail 
I hope you guys like the inputs which have been made by all of us

Watched it last night. It's a well-made video that hits so many nails on so many heads for me.

Lack of attention to detail, reputation not increasing fast enough, SI adding pointless features before fixing what they already have. Those are just some of the reasons why I'm so disappointed with FM23, so it's good to hear these being discussed in an honest - but also respectful and constructive - manner.

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb CFuller:

but also respectful and constructive - manner.

This was really important to me! The topic itself is much more complex and contains so much more. I could have talked 2 hours straight about which Nations are definetly OP, which are UP and which have a bit a weaker tendency The discussion was just to show in which direction SI might take more attention. 

FM23 to me has 150/200CA. It is still by far the best football simulation (and sport simulation in general) for me, but I wish there is the ambition to improve the game to get it to like 180/200CA at least

I want to see Football Manager in the Hall of Fame in a couple of years

[Ferocious289]

32 minutes ago, gunnerfan said:

I didn't find the apology disturbing at all. He was acknowledging what can happen on the business side when coding work is criticized and hoping his critique doesn't negative unintended consequences. I thought he was being quite decent about it.

He apologised again at the end of the video and explained he didn't want to ruffle a few feathers, well it's about time some feathers were ruffled considering how many area's of game are half baked and don't work as intended. I'm talking about AI player development, illogical player interaction, ridiculous repetitive press conferences that you can anticipate the questions off by heart  The ridiculous defending where you see players mis jump a simple ball played over their head or legit goals ruled off side by VAR.

Pointing school boy errors in the game should not have to be accompanied by an apology, it's ridiculous and goes back to what another poster said, these people need to toughen up and learn not take criticism personally when critiqued. If someone isn't doing their job properly in the real world there are consequences you can't expect a raise if you overlooking fundemental objectives in your job role.

Where is their apology?

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ferocious289

[anagain]

I agree there could be discussion on where to take FM, and a survey (the Dr Benjiy) one is a harmless way to see where we're at.

As for judging the state of FM from these forums, well that's a pointless task. This forum is insanely negative and equally unconstructive. As has been pointed out, the reviews of FM, for example at Steam, are very favourable. These forums are just a very small part of the FM community.

I enjoy the game. Immensely. But there is a fair bit of FM that frustrates me, and mostly with the UI. I think the features that were introduced this year were not good enough and that SI could take a year of just polishing and buffing the game up to a high level and it would have been the same as what they added for FM23.

The ME is another matter. I love the work that has been done on the ME over the past few years and I think this is where SI are excelling. In contrast, I don't think that the majority of people on this forum understand how the ME is to work on, and nor do they listen when the likes of Neil Brock explain how things are when they update the game.

 

I am a glass half full person, but I don't think that is why I love FM23 so much. I just love FM. I love the underlying game for all its drama and its ability to tell a story. If some things were fixed or improved upon then it would make FM a better game, but in no way is this game as bad as some people on these forums make out.

 

It seems to be a thing this year to heavily criticise FM. In the past couple of days I have seen Rashidi make an interesting video entitled "Issues SI Need To Address" - that I thought was well done and had many points I agreed with. I have also seen Zealand make one of his controversial videos, this time entitled "Has Football Manager Changed in 5 Years?". The answer to Zealand's video was a bit of both. There are things that are very similar but there are things that have changed enormously. To me, that is because FM is FM. It doesn't need to change drastically to be the wonderfully addictive game it is.

I saw interesting things in both videos. Rashidi's video was constructive and dived deep in to why some things need to be changed. Very much the polar opposite to the feedback thread. Zealand's video received a comment that suggested FM23 was like a game from 1998. When I dared to argue with the commenter that if he compared screenshots of FM23 and CM98/99 then it'd be proven that he was talking absolute rubbish he backed down and said he didn't really mean 1998. That is 90% of general discussion commenters in a nutshell.

To be honest, I can see benefits in SI working with You Tubers to get a bigger picture. Things is, I believe they already do. I hope they pay attention to the likes of Rashidi and Dr Benjiy because those people will see a benefit to being informative, honest and constructive if they want to succeed. Forum goers are not bound by that. Zealand is a bit of a misnomer. I personally find him entertaining but he does post the sensational that is designed to get a reaction.

I would like to see a renewed effort from SI with regards to the features of the game. If they could put the effort in to that that they seem to have put in to the ME then there's a truly fantastic FM waiting for us in the next few years.

I have said it many times. Take a year just fixing what is broken, or that doesn't work properly. If they can release a version with FM23's underwhelming features then they can release a version that is just polish of what is existing. For me, fixing much would be better than adding new features that add more small buggy(ish) features.

 

Conversation should, and I am sure is, always ongoing anyway. SI could be a lot more communicative but I do believe they care. It's been a tough few years for a lot of people.

 

[anagain]

On 05/01/2023 at 12:12, phnompenhandy said:

Coincidentally, I got this on Twitter today

THE BIG FOOTBALL MANAGER SURVEY

 

So Dr. Benjy is compiling a survey of users to take to SI.

I concur with the observation that there is a small minority of posters here who's attitude is basically toxic, always looking to post negative stuff about FM23. The Official FM23 Feedback Thread became so unpleasant to me that I ceased opening it a while back. Elsewhere, I just glaze over those kinds of posts and I don't see any reason SI employees should indulge them. Benjy and the other people in that YouTube video do articulate valid criticisms without descending in toxicity, and I do believe they talk for a larger fanbase. They all play daily and post regularly, so it's not as if their criticisms put them off playing and enjoying the game. 

Anyway, my point is -  a video is unnecessary. The survey should suffice.

Thanks for posting that. I heard about this survey in a YT video this morning. I meant to check it out and would have forgotten without this nice reminder.

[CFuller]

26 minutes ago, anagain said:

It seems to be a thing this year to heavily criticise FM. In the past couple of days I have seen Rashidi make an interesting video entitled "Issues SI Need To Address" - that I thought was well done and had many points I agreed with. I have also seen Zealand make one of his controversial videos, this time entitled "Has Football Manager Changed in 5 Years?". The answer to Zealand's video was a bit of both. There are things that are very similar but there are things that have changed enormously. To me, that is because FM is FM. It doesn't need to change drastically to be the wonderfully addictive game it is.

Another YouTuber did a video a while back (in a less clickbaity manner than Zealand) comparing FM23 to FM13. He came to a similar conclusion. Yes, the game has largely changed for the better, but that change probably hasn't gone far enough.

Incidentally, FM13 is my favourite game of the series so far. Not the best version of FM; just the one I've enjoyed most and sunk the most hours into. But as underwhelmed as you might be at FM23's graphics, FM13 hardly looked like a work of art - and the player and ball animations and movements have definitely come on leaps and bounds over the last decade.

26 minutes ago, anagain said:

I saw interesting things in both videos. Rashidi's video was constructive and dived deep in to why some things need to be changed. Very much the polar opposite to the feedback thread. Zealand's video received a comment that suggested FM23 was like a game from 1998. When I dared to argue with the commenter that if he compared screenshots of FM23 and CM98/99 then it'd be proven that he was talking absolute rubbish he backed down and said he didn't really mean 1998. That is 90% of general discussion commenters in a nutshell.

Yep. Just because FM doesn't look like FIFA, a lot of people seem to trot out the same old lines. "This looks like it's for the Game Boy Advance." "This looks like it was made in 1999." These lines are always nonsense garbage thrown together by people who a) never played on said console or b) can't remember what games actually looked like in said year.

Seriously, those people should look at FIFA 98 or Ultimate Soccer Manager 98, then compare them to what we have now. Not just look screenshots either - actually watch some videos of those older games, then see how they stack up to FM23. Obviously, they won't do that.

But those destructive comments aren't just on Zealand's videos. There are a few silly replies on Rashidi's videos too, moaning about "no competition"  or calling for people to lose their jobs.

[Lord Rowell]

On 06/01/2023 at 08:48, deltablue said:

Well this isn't a criticism of you personally it doesn't help when some of you claim credit for SI releasing a patch shortly after doing a video together discussing the game's flaws. Then there are the misleadingly-titled videos claiming to discover 'The Truth' about FM and how it works but which are based on a flawed understanding of the game and a spreading of misinformation.  As for your survey, some of us tried it and weren't impressed by the flawed (and in some cases clearly biased) questions which are of limited value towards helping provide proper constructive feedback to help improve the game and how SI engage. It seems designed more so you can make a big thing of how much the fanbase agrees with what you and the others have been saying. Apologies if I have misjudged your motivations but just wanted to explain why some of us have a certain negative impression of the big name FM youtubers.

I don't really see why a moderator felt the need to criticise the survery or its motivations in the first place.

There is, as has been mentioned oft times, toxicity on these forums and there has been now for a long time. It cuts both ways when there is ill-informed critique like this and a defensiveness across the board.

23 hours ago, doctorbenjy said:

'That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator' - I think this is important, and I think you're right, and it ultimately depends if people think I'm entirely negative or not, I personally would say I'm far from entirely negative and actually incredibly balanced in how I view Football Manager, and I believe those at SI that I communicate with regularly would agree as would those that for example watch my streams on a regular basis and I've demonstrated this over the best part of the last decade. As for what you've said about the negativity of the questions, that then depends on if people think the survey is negative from the outset, which based not only on the results so far but all of the feedback I've had on it, the majority don't believe it is. I'm sure the argument will be made of 'yeah of course your audience don't think it's negative' - but I'm incredibly aware this survey has reached far beyond my active follower base, so to claim otherwise does at a glance look disingenuous, including seeing it being posted here.

Having just had a 2 hour conversation with someone from this very thread about the survey, I think my intentions in that call were made very clear and I've perhaps not done a good enough job of explaining those here, but in a sentence in an attempt to clarify. Ultimately, this survey was for me and other active content creators in the scene to grasp the general feeling towards the game, it's not suppose to be an in-depth look at certain sections, some of which SI will already have data on and some of which I didn't feel relevant at this time, but if SI want to talk about the community feedback I've gathered then I'm open to that, and the communication I've had with them so far suggests they absolutely do, which I hope will be as productive as any other time I speak to them directly.

You don't have to explain those here and you shouldn't feel the need to or feel pressured into doing so.

Your motivations I've no doubt are sound and FWIW I thought the survey was fine. Anyone can pick holes in the methodology, sample representation / size etc. Tbh I think its academic bullying.

I am very glad that your direct communications with SI are positive though. I do very much believe SI's hearts are in the right places, its just a shame about the defensiveness here and there's no excuse for it.

[priority76]

1 hour ago, Ferocious289 said:

Where is their apology?

I'm amazed you were able to write this comment, considering SI have tied you to a chair and forced you to play their terrible game.

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, gunnerfan said:

I didn't find the apology disturbing at all. He was acknowledging what can happen on the business side when coding work is criticized and hoping his critique doesn't negative unintended consequences. I thought he was being quite decent about it.

I think Ferocious289 is misrepresenting the apology somewhat, and for what its worth, they shouldn't do that because he doesn't take kindly to people twisting his words, and he makes it known Daljit just likes to be polite, because understands you can be constructive and respectful. He's sent all of this to SI already, when Neil said we have continuous communication with SI, it wasn't an exaggeration.

[Ferocious289]

28 minutes ago, priority76 said:

I'm amazed you were able to write this comment, considering SI have tied you to a chair and forced you to play their terrible game.

Do you realise people paid money for the game or does that go over your head? You're ok with the idea of customers apologising to a company for daring to highlight issues in the game, but you not ok with the idea of a multi million company issuing an apology for releasing a game where AI teams don't develop youth players, in game stutter lag to the point where many players can't even play the game because it's their version is not fit for purpose and defenders can't cope with long balls over the top from goalkeepers? Individuals like you are the reason why the game does not have any innovation and instead we get glorfied dlc animation update charged at full price

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ferocious289

[Neil Brock]

For me personally, it's interesting to see comments from people that almost seem to insinuate we do certain things related to the game 'badly' on purpose.

There's a reason why FM has been successful for so long and other football management titles have fallen by the wayside. It's because it's really hard for anyone to do it well.

We have a finite number of designers, developers and so many other behind the scenes people working within a set timeframe to deliver a product of the highest possible standard. We do it better than anybody else on the market right now and have done so for a number of years. 

Calls for people to have 'tougher skin' are made by the same type of people who feel it's okay to shout dog's abuse at footballers when hidden within the crowd or even worse, when protected by the anonymity of the internet.

We've always said there's absolutely a place for constructive criticism, be it via these forums or from whatever other media form within the community. But to think we'll actually engage and use abuse in any way shape or form is absolutely misguided.

And a quick word in relation to our moderators. These people are volunteers who are extremely passionate about the game and who have contributed more than people would likely know. They are free to post here their own thoughts. They’ve given us constructive feedback over the years (both positive and negative) and are invaluable as part of what allows us to make our games.

They’re also human beings, so just because they have ‘Moderator’ next to their names shouldn’t make them targets just for voicing their opinions.  

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

Do you realise people paid money for the game or does that go over your head? You're ok with the idea of customers apologising to a company for daring to highlight issues in the game, but you not ok with the idea of a multi million company issuing an apology for releasing a game where AI teams don't develop youth players, in game stutter lag to the point where many players can't even play the game because it's their version is not fit for purpose and defenders can't cope with long balls over the top from goalkeepers? Apologists like you are the reason why the game does have any innovation and instead we get glorfied dlc animation update charged at full price

Stop referring to others as apologists. I don't know why you can't seem to interact respectfully but next time you cross the line, you will be removed from the thread entirely. 

[Ferocious289]

25 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Stop referring to others as apologists. I don't know why you can't seem to interact respectfully but next time you cross the line, you will be removed from the thread entirely. 

It's very frustrating hearing people try to defend the indefensible and talk down to people who want the game to be better. I will hold my tongue but it's not the first time I've been patronised on here and seen others getting snidy responses. At the end of the day it's just a game and not worth stressing over just don't understand why criticism with a game that is riddled with issues is recieved with heavy opposition.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ferocious289

[Ferocious289]

2 hours ago, CFuller said:

Another YouTuber did a video a while back (in a less clickbaity manner than Zealand) comparing FM23 to FM13. He came to a similar conclusion. Yes, the game has largely changed for the better, but that change probably hasn't gone far enough.

Incidentally, FM13 is my favourite game of the series so far. Not the best version of FM; just the one I've enjoyed most and sunk the most hours into. But as underwhelmed as you might be at FM23's graphics, FM13 hardly looked like a work of art - and the player and ball animations and movements have definitely come on leaps and bounds over the last decade.

Yep. Just because FM doesn't look like FIFA, a lot of people seem to trot out the same old lines. "This looks like it's for the Game Boy Advance." "This looks like it was made in 1999." These lines are always nonsense garbage thrown together by people who a) never played on said console or b) can't remember what games actually looked like in said year.

Seriously, those people should look at FIFA 98 or Ultimate Soccer Manager 98, then compare them to what we have now. Not just look screenshots either - actually watch some videos of those older games, then see how they stack up to FM23. Obviously, they won't do that.

But those destructive comments aren't just on Zealand's videos. There are a few silly replies on Rashidi's videos too, moaning about "no competition"  or calling for people to lose their jobs.

 

I don't think the game has to look like fifa, I don't think many people are asking for fifa graphics, they just want better immersion and be taken away from the fact they are watching stickmen juggle a ball. The sound pack mod shows what can be done with the atmosphere during games, where you can actually hear the ball being thumped, stadium announcer, the sound of the woodwork being hit and different anthems. Without it it's dead and you are subjected to bright green pixelled pitches that look like something out of minecraft.

Hopefully the introduction of woman's football will introduce new dimensions to the in game mechanics along with graphical enhancements which showcase the difference between player models bettter. Really there should be a night and day difference from 2017 graphics and 2023 graphics but there isn't any in fact it's regressed and seems the attention to detail is missing in the art work.

[gunnerfan]

An old saying: you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Rashidi and Daveinced made their points calmly and with respect, thus assuring their comments will be taken seriously. When you yell at someone, either literally or in print, their first reaction is to tune you out. It's human nature.

[anagain]

44 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

Do you realise people paid money for the game or does that go over your head? You're ok with the idea of customers apologising to a company for daring to highlight issues in the game, but you not ok with the idea of a multi million company issuing an apology for releasing a game where AI teams don't develop youth players, in game stutter lag to the point where many players can't even play the game because it's their version is not fit for purpose and defenders can't cope with long balls over the top from goalkeepers? Individuals like you are the reason why the game does not have any innovation and instead we get glorfied dlc animation update charged at full price

 

16 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

It's very frustrating hearing people try to defend the indefensible and talk down to people who want the game to be better. I will hold my tongue but it's not the first time I've been patronised on here and seen others getting snidy responses. At the end of the day it's just a game and not worth stressing over just don't understand why criticism with a game that is riddled with issues is recieved with heavy opposition.

You're very vocal on this forum. Whenever there is grumbling and dissent, criticism and boosting of critcism I have seen your name. Yet one post in any bug report, from what I can see in 5 pages of posts under your name, and not your bug report. Just a post about how unacceptable a bug is in someone else's bug report. Not one save or pkm seems to have been posted by you despite all your many grumbles about the state of FM. Yet you feel qualified to enter a thread about communication with SI and demand better.

If someone has grumbles about the game then that's fine. There's nothing wrong about that. As has been said numerous times, including by SI, providing examples as to why things are broken is how SI fix things. They can't fix grumbles.

If you really believe FM is in such a horrendous state then help them improve it by doing what these YouTubers, that have been regularly mentioned in this thread, have done. Be constructive. Post examples to help SI fix things you think are broken.

To be honest, I think you're just rude. Sorry to be blunt. Hard to really support you when SI have asked numerous times that examples are what they need and you just moan.

[Ferocious289]

3 minutes ago, anagain said:

 

You're very vocal on this forum. Whenever there is grumbling and dissent, criticism and boosting of critcism I have seen your name. Yet one post in any bug report, from what I can see in 5 pages of posts under your name, and not your bug report. Just a post about how unacceptable a bug is in someone else's bug report. Not one save or pkm seems to have been posted by you despite all your many grumbles about the state of FM. Yet you feel qualified to enter a thread about communication with SI and demand better.

If someone has grumbles about the game then that's fine. There's nothing wrong about that. As has been said numerous times, including by SI, providing examples as to why things are broken is how SI fix things. They can't fix grumbles.

If you really believe FM is in such a horrendous state then help them improve it by doing what these YouTubers, that have been regularly mentioned in this thread, have done. Be constructive. Post examples to help SI fix things you think are broken.

To be honest, I think you're just rude. Sorry to be blunt. Hard to really support you when SI have asked numerous times that examples are what they need and you just moan.

Most of the bugs have already been reported and to be honest with you, I'm not really tech savy on how to upload pkms and show hightlights of the game and such though I uploaded a save file during the beta which was pretty easy. For example when I last played the game I lost a game due to having a legit goal ruled out by VAR which was in no way offside and in the same game conceded a penalty afterwards which my player fairly won the ball which cost me the match. I wanted to report it but had no idea how to record the match and upload it

But yes I will if can find time to post bugs but I rarely play the game much to go over the issues simply because there are these issues and I'm waiting for the winter patch til start a new save. As for being rude that's your opinion, sometimes I can get annoyed but I always try to be courteous when engaging my points with others.

[anagain]

5 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

Most of the bugs have already been reported and to be honest with you, I'm not really tech savy on how to upload pkms and show hightlights of the game and such though I uploaded a save file during the beta which was pretty easy. For example when I last played the game I lost a game due to having a legit goal ruled out by VAR which was in no way offside and in the same game conceded a penalty afterwards which my player fairly won the ball which cost me the match. I wanted to report it but had no idea how to record the match and upload it

But yes I will if can find time to post bugs but I rarely play the game much to go over the issues simply because there are these issues and I'm waiting for the winter patch til start a new save. As for being rude that's your opinion, sometimes I can get annoyed but I always try to be courteous when engaging my points with others.

You can post numerous times to grumble about the game but never thought to ask how you save a match and upload the pkm?

Sorry, but if you are tech savvy enough to use a forum or install FM then you're tech savvy enough to read the help guides/ask and upload a save or a pkm.

"For example when I last played the game I lost a game due to having a legit goal ruled out by VAR which was in no way offside and in the same game conceded a penalty afterwards which my player fairly won the ball which cost me the match"

That does happen in football. 

[danielgear]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

For me personally, it's interesting to see comments from people that almost seem to insinuate we do certain things related to the game 'badly' on purpose.

Anyone who thinks this has to baiting, having the pleasure of speaking publicly and privately with numerous SI employees over the years, The main credit I can give them is every employee really cares about the game. Whilst I might disagree with the direction of the game regarding some of features etc added through the years, I know every feature is targeted to be delivered to the best they can and whilst what a consumer might expect might be different its certainly not because SI purposely did it badly.
 

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

We've always said there's absolutely a place for constructive criticism, be it via these forums or from whatever other media form within the community.

Neil is totally right here too I've offered constructive criticism over the years and SI have always been open to receiving it and followed up with me about it in some situations.

1 hour ago, Ferocious289 said:

just don't understand why criticism with a game that is riddled with issues is recieved with heavy opposition.

I disagree, as much as you have your opinion there may be issues it doesn't mean everyone has to have the same opinion and them opposing your opinion isn't a bad thing if it's done in a respectful way from both sides,
I think there is issues with the game, maybe not the same issues as you but maybe the same and there is room for discussion about those issues but the whole narrative of "I paid money for the game I'm allowed to shout as loud as I want about it" is wrong.
In SI's defence they have a whole testing forum accessible to you and have already released two patches in 2 months (Release day and December patches) 

 

1 hour ago, anagain said:

Whenever there is grumbling and dissent, criticism and boosting of critcism I have seen your name. Yet one post in any bug report, from what I can see in 5 pages of posts under your name, and not your bug report

Bang on, if you can't take the time to report bugs or issues then spend ages moaning about them you're more to blame than SI ever is with regards to the issues within the game 

 

 

53 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

I'm not really tech savy on how to upload pkms and show hightlights of the game and such

Luckily for you @Neil Brockhas made a post on how too do this and its straight forward.

[Hovis Dexter]

3 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

… Calls for people to have 'tougher skin' are made by the same type of people who feel it's okay to shout dog's abuse at footballers when hidden within the crowd or even worse, when protected by the anonymity of the internet …

Well said. I came here to make exactly the same point but you’ve beaten me to it. Oh, and in the interests of honesty I admit that my user name is not my real name.

[vikeologist]

A few points I'd like to raise about 2 of Neil Brock's posts on this thread. Neil said a lot, and I'm picking out small parts that I disagree with. I do appreciate Neil's feedback, and I accept a lot of his premises. There's some I don't though.

On 05/01/2023 at 13:41, Neil Brock said:

 

Every issue raised in the Bug Tracker is read and assessed. Every feature request is read and assessed. We have people monitoring our forums and social channels all year round and recently hired a member of staff from within the creator community to liaise with that group. She consumes community-made content and gives creators a channel to communicate with us directly.

We run a Private Alpha test before the launch of each FM of hundreds of people from within our community and research teams which is made up of people who have productively contributed over the years, by raising issues and providing feedback via these forums. 

 

I no longer believe that issues raised in the Bug Tracker are processed competently. There are too many examples of issues being ignored, forgotten about or slipping through the cracks. 

 I understand that the SI staff responding are real people. It's maybe not their fault, and it doesn't help anybody for bug tracker threads to turn into an argument. I think the second best option is to simply report bugs and hope they're resolved. 

Unfortunately, I now think the best option is to just not bother at all. 

Having played the game for more than 20 years, and run a Journeyman challenge for about 8, I know a lot about the different leagues, and the problems that can arise. I think there's people who do the Youth Challenge that have an excellent understanding of player development, personalities and the whole Youth side of the game. I don't know who is part of the Private Alpha, but I did reach out last year to somebody on the Youth Challenge with an  obvious understanding of the Youth side of things, and they weren't part of the Alpha side of things either. 

So anyway, last year (FM22) I raised lots of bug reports to try and become part of the Alpha team. As people have pointed out on this thread, don't complain about bugs if you're not trying to be part of the solution. The trouble is that raising reports really drove home to me how bad the handling of reports is. About half the bugs I reported were fixed eventually, but they were mostly small bugs. The large problems weren't resolved, and in some cases weren't even resolved for FM23. So at some point I gave up and no longer hoped to be part of the Alpha.

I had a brief surge of enthusiasm for FM23 and encouraged people to report a bug and take the time to provide reports and save games, but it was a waste of their time.

Perhaps there is a specific problem in the League Specific side of things.

Neil has said 

Quote

We have a finite number of designers, developers and so many other behind the scenes people working within a set timeframe to deliver a product of the highest possible standard. We do it better than anybody else on the market right now and have done so for a number of years. 

And a quick word in relation to our moderators. These people are volunteers who are extremely passionate about the game and who have contributed more than people would likely know. They are free to post here their own thoughts.

Sometimes companies do things well for a long time, and then the rot sets in. Some people are still happy with the game. Some people have never been happy about anything. I can only say for myself that for 20 years I was one of SI's biggest fans, and now I'm an extremely strong critic. 

As for moderators, posting one's own thoughts is one thing. A couple using their status to repeatedly be jerks is another.

I agree with the need to not be abusive. As frustrated as I am with the game and SI, I try to remember that SI staff, mods and researchers  are ostensibly on the same team as me. 

Unbelievably, this is my attempt at a short response on these issues.

[DarJ]

2 hours ago, vikeologist said:

The large problems weren't resolved

that doesn't mean  they didn't see it though. They have said numerous times that the way they handle bugs is they prioritise those that they feel would affect most people and even with that maybe they tried fixing it but it was causing issues in other areas. 

I do agree with you that seeing bugs carry over from previous games is annoying because it gives the feeling that they don't just care 

[danielgear]

30 minutes ago, DarJ said:

do agree with you that seeing bugs carry over from previous games is annoying because it gives the feeling that they don't just care 

This isn’t an SI issue though, numerous games that are yearly have the same issue, even bigger titles like FIFA and madden. Like you said they probably prioritise between impact and what can be fixed in a short time some bugs there might be reasons why they can’t fix them or within the time between editions. 
 

The amount of bugs fixed between release and December was probably more than we realised due to the size of the patch update. For every bug you see they haven’t fixed how many bugs don’t we see that get fixed? 

2 hours ago, vikeologist said:

So anyway, last year (FM22) I raised lots of bug reports to try and become part of the Alpha team

You say you have played for 20 years and finally on the FM22 edition you say you were really active in the hopes of getting on the alpha but now because you didn’t get on the enthusiasm has gone. If you can’t see the issue with that then maybe it’s best you don’t get on it  I’m pretty sure the people who must get added are the ones offering consistently good quality bug reports over a period of time not just one edition when they want to try a bit harder to get on it. 

[vikeologist]

10 minutes ago, DarJ said:

that doesn't mean  they didn't see it though. They have said numerous times that the way they handle bugs is they prioritise those that they feel would affect most people and even with that maybe they tried fixing it but it was causing issues in other areas. 

I do agree with you that seeing bugs carry over from previous games is annoying because it gives the feeling that they don't just care 

Sure. My anger isn't about large bugs not being resolved, even though they are massive problems. SI have to prioritise and they're the ones with all the relevant info. (However, I do think that if a bug makes 3 leagues and 2 Champions Leagues unplayable, then even if it affects a small number of people, it's more important to fix that than an insignificant one in England that is a minor irritation).

My problem is that they see the bug report, and then it just falls through the cracks. It's not me saying that. It's them.

Quote

We do have this being examined by the developers. Unfortunately this issue was missed first time around, due to some chaos in the initial thread that was posted.

The thread they're referring to was actually about the 4th thread that had been created. 

I truthfully don't mind when they say what immediately followed on from the above quote.

Quote

We are looking to hopefully have this resolved for the next update, though we can't guarantee it will be fixed, thank you

I have always understood that huge bugs require more testing.   What I do mind is when they try to subtly try to blame us for the 'chaos' and suggest that people just don't continue saves in Africa or North America.

Quote

For the time being it would be better to play a different save. We're sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[CFuller]

2 hours ago, vikeologist said:

I no longer believe that issues raised in the Bug Tracker are processed competently. There are too many examples of issues being ignored, forgotten about or slipping through the cracks. 

 I understand that the SI staff responding are real people. It's maybe not their fault, and it doesn't help anybody for bug tracker threads to turn into an argument. I think the second best option is to simply report bugs and hope they're resolved. 

Unfortunately, I now think the best option is to just not bother at all. 

Having played the game for more than 20 years, and run a Journeyman challenge for about 8, I know a lot about the different leagues, and the problems that can arise. I think there's people who do the Youth Challenge that have an excellent understanding of player development, personalities and the whole Youth side of the game. I don't know who is part of the Private Alpha, but I did reach out last year to somebody on the Youth Challenge with an  obvious understanding of the Youth side of things, and they weren't part of the Alpha side of things either. 

So anyway, last year (FM22) I raised lots of bug reports to try and become part of the Alpha team. As people have pointed out on this thread, don't complain about bugs if you're not trying to be part of the solution. The trouble is that raising reports really drove home to me how bad the handling of reports is. About half the bugs I reported were fixed eventually, but they were mostly small bugs. The large problems weren't resolved, and in some cases weren't even resolved for FM23. So at some point I gave up and no longer hoped to be part of the Alpha.

I had a brief surge of enthusiasm for FM23 and encouraged people to report a bug and take the time to provide reports and save games, but it was a waste of their time.

I do sympathise. Maybe it's just a cognitive bias, but SI's responses to bug reports don't seem to be as quick or reassuring as they used to be. I had a few reports from FM21 and FM22 that went unnoticed for weeks (and I was far from alone in that) before getting some generic apology. This is one area where I feel SI could do so much better.

And it's very frustrating when multiple bugs that you have been reporting for years are still present in the game today. I understand that SI will have their priorities when it comes to bug fixes. But custom views that always break if you add one column in the wrong place? Surely that isn't lower on the priority list than giving your manager nice jewellery?

But it goes both ways. Look in the match engine Bug Tracker, and you'll find that around half of ME bug reports don't have any PKMs or save files attached, even though they're almost always necessary for looking at ME bugs. When it comes to fixing the ME, SI can't really do anything with a screenshot or a video. I'm really not sure how SI could make this any clearer - short of making PKMs mandatory in the ME bug tracker, but that's not a perfect solution - so they need the community to be more proactive when it comes to bug reporting.

I'm not actively playing FM23 right now - not until the next major update at least. Despite my concerns, I'll keep on posting bug reports in the meantime.

[vikeologist]

1 minute ago, danielgear said:

 

 

You say you have played for 20 years and finally on the FM22 edition you say you were really active in the hopes of getting on the alpha but now because you didn’t get on the enthusiasm has gone. If you can’t see the issue with that then maybe it’s best you don’t get on it  I’m pretty sure the people who must get added are the ones offering consistently good quality bug reports over a period of time not just one edition when they want to try a bit harder to get on it. 

You're misrepresenting me. Over the years I've raised lots of bug reports, but at the start of FM22 I realised that I'd been raising less in the last couple of years than I had before.  I did encourage others to raise bug reports when they complained about them on the thread I oversee, I hadn't done so much of that myself, so I made a conscious decision to actually make sure I was putting in the effort to be part of the solution. Basically I agree with the notion behind your reply that one has to actually walk the walk when it comes to reporting bugs.

I didn't expect to raise a few bugs and Neil to come running to me.

I'd say that up to about 3 years ago, I didn't feel that there were that many bugs in FM. There was one bad year. Maybe 15 years ago, and with FM21 I thought that maybe it was just another bad year. Understandable given the whole COVID situation.

But it wasn't that my 'enthusiasm' went. I became really angry at the way that SI deals with bugs, and so the best thing was to step away because it was proving to be unproductive.

I guess if you put a lot of time into reporting bugs, you have some kind of internal scale about what's an acceptable level of resolution. I'm sure that others that do report bugs feel differently than me. I don't object to others taking the time to do it. I'm just not going to encourage people to do it any more. Far better for us to assume that SI will never fix it, and try to help each other with workarounds.

[forameuss]

17 minutes ago, vikeologist said:

Sure. My anger isn't about large bugs not being resolved, even though they are massive problems. SI have to prioritise and they're the ones with all the relevant info. (However, I do think that if a bug makes 3 leagues and 2 Champions Leagues unplayable, then even if it affects a small number of people, it's more important to fix that than an insignificant one in England that is a minor irritation).

 

While I see where you're coming from, and that's perhaps logical, I'd disagree.  If something is literally ruining the experience of one user, and it's compared against something making 50% of the player base slightly miffed, then the latter will always win in prioritisation.  That's pretty rubbish for that one person, but SI - and any other developer in any other industry, where you're big enough that you're having to look at the macro level - will look at it differently.

There's also the possibility that if something is demonstrably affecting a small number of people, then it can often be down to being intermittent, or an extremely narrow set of cases, and thus be very difficult to pin down and actually fix. 

[vikeologist]

1 minute ago, CFuller said:

I do sympathise. Maybe it's just a cognitive bias, but SI's responses to bug reports don't seem to be as quick or reassuring as they used to be. I had a few reports from FM21 and FM22 that went unnoticed for weeks (and I was far from alone in that) before getting some generic apology. This is one area where I feel SI could do so much better.

And it's very frustrating when multiple bugs that you have been reporting for years are still present in the game today. I understand that SI will have their priorities when it comes to bug fixes. But custom views that always break if you add one column in the wrong place? Surely that isn't lower on the priority list than giving your manager nice jewellery?

But it goes both ways. Look in the match engine Bug Tracker, and you'll find that around half of ME bug reports don't have any PKMs or save files attached, even though they're almost always necessary for looking at ME bugs. When it comes to fixing the ME, SI can't really do anything with a screenshot or a video. I'm really not sure how SI could make this any clearer - short of making PKMs mandatory in the ME bug tracker, but that's not a perfect solution - so they need the community to be more proactive when it comes to bug reporting.

I'm not actively playing FM23 right now - not until the next major update at least. Despite my concerns, I'll keep on posting bug reports in the meantime.

I never raised many match engine bugs, because sometimes I watch real football matches and think, 'well, that's a bug'. It is to some degree subjective. However, one of the bugs that SI did fix last year was when I provided the PKM of one of my players taking throw ins that Superman would be impressed with, and it was fixed. I don't want to suggest that none of the issues I raised were resolved or reviewed properly. Just not enough, and not enough of the serious ones.

[danielgear]

1 minute ago, vikeologist said:

Just not enough, and not enough of the serious ones.

It depends if what you consider serious is the same as SI.

 

12 minutes ago, vikeologist said:

You're misrepresenting me. Over the years I've raised lots of bug reports, but at the start of FM22 I realised that I'd been raising less in the last couple of years than I had before.  I did encourage others to raise bug reports when they complained about them on the thread I oversee, I hadn't done so much of that myself, so I made a conscious decision to actually make sure I was putting in the effort to be part of the solution. Basically I agree with the notion behind your reply that one has to actually walk the walk when it comes to reporting bugs.

Maybe you misrepresented yourself but yes that’s what I meant. I understand the frustration when bugs aren’t fixed trust me but I also understand there must be reasons why. SI want it to be just as bug free as we do. 

[Maviarab]

On 05/01/2023 at 03:01, JimmysTheBestCop said:

I can honestly say if the grapchis or sound or atmosphere or stadiums aren't imprived in fm24 there be 0 reason for me to purchase it. Unless there some new killer feature which I highly doubt.

100% this.  Going down the path of most cpompanies regardless of industry...target the new people and screw the people who actually keep you afloat and got you where you are.  I've not bought FM since 18....asked lots of questions on forums, fan sites etc...should get 21, 22 or 23....unanimous answers were 23.  Was greeted with an ad useage permission screeen...almost refunded it right there and then.  See the 'exciting new features'....pfff please.  They are losing more players year on year....sure they are replaced with new players...but in a few years, those 'new' players will be like us and think...is there really any point in paying this money for what amounts to a simple data update when I/they have to spend hours on the internet fixing shizz in the game ourselves that should be done by SI?

 

On 06/01/2023 at 02:49, JimmysTheBestCop said:

Most people outside of england and europe come to FM through content creators especially north america. And europe might nudge north america in overall population but in terms of sheer gamers north america has europe beat. so i wouldnt underestimate their contributions to spread the word of FM. After all FM even produced by Sega is an Indy niche title.

But it is also hard to conquer North America with decades old graphic engine, awful sound, lighting, stadiums and atmosphere. I think more is expected of FM now then ever before especially post covid. I hop SI is up to the challenge. But SI needs to start acting like a AAAA dev and not a small niche indy dev.

Hell out of the park baseball released an official stadium editor. Its fan base is dwarfed by FM and it might be lucky to have 12 employees in the development staff. But it has better stadiums and face generation than FM who is the big dog on the block.

SI needs to come correct with sound and graphics. I mean it is a meme all over the internet how bad the sound in FM is and how everyone mutes it. That isnt good for a leading game in sports management. Take some money buy more default skins and buy some real honest to god sound system that goes along with the match engine and adds to the experience. 

I cant imagine in any universe there was data to support creating squad planner or press conference. It is absolutely boring. Even the new agent interaction as good as it is ADDS millions of clicks. Now you need at least 3 mouse clicks per player to find out about transfer cost. The amount of useless clicks in FM23 has reason ungodly. 

SI needs to come correct in FM24. Time to up the game. Time to revolutionize not just small evolution each version. Absolutely love FM23 but I see ZERO reason to buy fm24 if graphics, sound, lighting, stmostpsher or stadiums arent touched. Yes FM23 ME is way better then FM22 but it still plays 95% exactly the same as fm22. 19-21 i could see difference but the difference between 22 and 23 are so small. At least in terms of game play. Yes there are improvements but its the same game play.

100% this also.  If you're going to have something in the game, do it properly.  This applies to anything...anywhere...any industry.  Want a 3D match engine...faces?  Do it properly.  So sick of seeing graphics and UI elements that looked dated 15 years ago....and they charge more and more for it?  But we have new licenses...so what?  What about all the licenses we have to corcumvent ourselves?  May as well do em all while we're at it, save yourself some money SI, stop official licensing (cos you know, we can fix that ourselves) and fix the stuff in the game that's needed fixing for years.  Not like you're not cashing in hand over fist with your new 'advertising deals' which benefit one sole entity alone...and it's not the players, because the money they make from this extra source, sure as hell isn't going back into the game.

Haven't bought since FM18 until this years....I won't be buying again anytime soon with the current direction SI is heading.

 

On 06/01/2023 at 12:06, santy001 said:

Disclaimer in that on the whole I'm quite ignorant of the FM content creators, and so my sentiments are more moulded by those I've seen around Total War, WoW, FF14 and a mixture of Paradox titles. I feel like any survey done by a content creator will have a rather narrow scope with certain biases. That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator as there will typically be a prevailing or common mindset usually that develops with them and their core audience. Even SI putting out a survey through their twitter would be of limited value in my opinion since it only focuses on a portion of the player base who engage with twitter for example. I feel there's going to be too much to discredit the results outside of it being a mild curiosity. 

Anecdotally, longer term content creation tends to become more frequently negative, or more focused on the negatives with a game. It trends better, it gets more views and so it is understandable but how you mitigate that when trying to present any kind of data that's harvested is an important question. 

Agreed.  Regardless of what they say, they care about views and money.  Any CC who doesn't like that statement, well, the truth hurts.  Anyone who watches them and thinks they aren't...wake up.  I only watch one I like him personally, he doesn't big himself up, doesn't think he important, doesn't spend hours upon hours whining like a little girl, the rest....meh...as bad as any other 'creator' on YouTube and guys. you're nowhere near as interesting or funny as you think you are.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Maviarab

[doctorbenjy]

1 hour ago, Maviarab said:

Agreed.  Regardless of what they say, they care about views and money.  Any CC who doesn't like that statement, well, the truth hurts.  Anyone who watches them and thinks they aren't...wake up.  I only watch one I like him personally, he doesn't big himself up, doesn't think he important, doesn't spend hours upon hours whining like a little girl, the rest....meh...as bad as any other 'creator' on YouTube and guys. you're nowhere near as interesting or funny as you think you are.

I don't think any content creator would say they don't care about the views they get or the money they earn, it's the economy of how they do it professionally? So they probably care about money as much as anyone else does in their own job? I don't really know what point you're making? 

Myself personally? Well, while it's absolutely a factor in why I've continued to do it over a number of years, it's not my sole reason for making stuff, and certainly not the reason I give continual and honest feedback to SI. Unless you're in my position as a creator or have attempted to be one yourself, I'm not sure how you can speak in such absolutes about the career path? Rather than just assuming we spend 'hours and hours whining like a little girl', maybe ask questions and engage, especially if you've such strong opinions.

Nobody is saying you have to enjoy the content of every FM creator, I know I don't, but I can't just watch you misrepresent all of them in one uninformed attack. 

[gunnerfan]

I'm always amused when someone slags any "content creator" for making money at it. Speaking as a content creator in another medium (I'm a published novelist), I can tell you that I like making money from my books, but I don't think about that when I'm writing. I'm only interested in the quality of my work. Money, like fame, is rarely attained if pursued directly. It has to come as a byproduct of some quality endeavor.

[GIMN]

20 hours ago, gunnerfan said:

I'm always amused when someone slags any "content creator" for making money at it. Speaking as a content creator in another medium (I'm a published novelist), I can tell you that I like making money from my books, but I don't think about that when I'm writing. I'm only interested in the quality of my work. Money, like fame, is rarely attained if pursued directly. It has to come as a byproduct of some quality endeavor.

This is meant purely in jest, but Dan Brown was definitely chasing the money.  There's no way his books can be described as a quality endeavour!

[gunnerfan]

2 hours ago, GIMN said:

This is meant purely in jest, but Dan Brown was definitely chasing the money.  There's no way his books can be described as a quality endeavour!

The exception that proves the rule.